Clause 335 - Modification of disqualification provisions

Communications Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 8:55 am ar 30 Ionawr 2003.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 8:55, 30 Ionawr 2003

I beg to move amendment No. 405, in

clause 335, page 285, line 11, after 'States)', insert—

'(aa) paragraph 2 (disqualification of religious bodies);'.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 229, in

clause 335, page 285, leave out line 12 and insert—

'(b) paragraphs 2 and 6 (disqualification of religious bodies and advertising agencies).'.

Amendment No. 230, in

clause 335, page 285, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Amendment No. 231, in

clause 335, page 286, line 30, leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7).

Amendment No. 433, in

schedule 19, page 533, line 32, leave out '(2) and (3)'.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

It comes as something of a shock that we appear to have dismissed what is probably the most controversial amendment to the entire Bill without its having been moved, but never mind. Perhaps the hon. Member who was to have moved amendment No. 404 has seen the light. Whatever the reason, he did not arrive in time.

We come to the question of the continuing proscription of religious organisations holding a limited number of broadcast licences. That has been the subject of some considerable controversy for many years. It is, perhaps, understandable that the religious organisations find it offensive that they are singled out under broadcasting legislation as being somehow unfit to hold broadcasting licences, and there has for some time been considerable opposition to that ban.

The Government have made welcome moves to relax the restrictions. The Secretary of State wrote to Committee members towards the end of last year saying that the Government intended to relax some of the existing restrictions and allow religious

organisations to hold digital local radio licences in future. Despite that welcome relaxation, religious organisations will still be excluded from holding licences in a certain number of categories under the Bill. Those categories of licence are as follows: local digital radio multiplex, local analogue television, local digital television multiplex, national analogue television additional services, national digital radio multiplex, national analogue television, national digital television multiplex and national analogue radio.

Over the years various reasons have been given for why the Government felt that it was not appropriate for religious organisations to hold broadcasting licences. There has been talk of the danger of American-style TV evangelists coming and taking over stations. For some time, it was said that the Churches themselves wanted the disqualification. The most recent reason that has been given is that because spectrum is limited and there is therefore a limit to the number of licences that can be held, special conditions must therefore apply.

Existing legislation contains controls on who can hold licences. In particular, there is a requirement that only a fit and proper person should be eligible. I certainly do not say that a religious organisation should necessarily have any advantage in applying to hold a licence—there may be strong arguments about why that might be inappropriate—but I object to the blanket disqualification of religious organisations even being able to apply, and I think that other Opposition Members object to it and find it especially offensive. There is a large question mark over whether that bar is compatible with human rights legislation.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

While I agree with 90 per cent. of what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that the issue relates not only to Christian organisations, but to other religious groupings that might be less tolerant than the Christian religion? It would not be appropriate or right for the Bill to discriminate in favour of one religion and against another.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I agree. It would not be appropriate to discriminate in favour of one faith group and against another, and we do not propose that. If an application raises concerns such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, which is possible if applications are made by smaller, more controversial religions of any faith, existing controls in legislation make it likely that the application would be rejected. None the less, I and many others do not agree that all religious groups should be covered by a blanket disqualification without having the chance to argue their case.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State pointed out that the Bill, for the first time, carries a warning that it might contravene the Human Rights Act 1998. We talked about that when in our previous sitting we debated the ban on political parties paying for advertising on television. I asked on Second Reading whether another element of the Bill—religious broadcasting licences—might be subject to challenge under the European convention on human rights. The Secretary of State wrote shortly afterwards to say:

''The Government was challenged in the European Court of Human Rights by United Christian Broadcasters . . . Although the case was found to be inadmissible and Government succeeded, it is still in dispute with UCB over matters arising''.

The reasons why the Government argue that existing restrictions are not in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 are summarised on the website of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Under the heading ''Ownership by religious bodies'', the explanatory notes to the Bill say:

''The Government's view is that the retention of the disqualification for religious bodies to the extent proposed by the Bill is compatible with the ECHR. The aim of the ban (as summarised by the European Court of Human Rights in ruling inadmissible the challenge . . . ) is—'to promote the efficient use of scarce resources i.e. radio spectrum in order to safeguard pluralism in the media, cater for a variety of tastes and interests and avoid discrimination as between the many different religions practised in the United Kingdom.''

The current justification for the ban is the fact that limited spectrum is available and only a few stations could be licensed, which could discriminate against one religion rather than another.

That argument is being challenged. The original finding of the Court on United Christian Broadcasters' application made the same point strongly. The Court said that it was reliant on the Government's evidence, and stated in its judgement:

''the restricted capacity for national radio broadcasting permits the grant of only three independent national analogue licences and one independent national digital licence.''

Equally, there are restrictions on local licences. It has been argued that giving licences to religious groups would mean reducing local licences in order to free up spectrum, but the huge expansion in the number of licences seen in recent years casts considerable doubt on the strength of that argument. I understand that the Court has agreed to re-examine the application because of representations from religious bodies, and the case is now the subject of such examination by the European Court. The Government's declaration that they have won their case in the Court and that there is no problem with the ECHR is not correct.

I also draw the Committee's attention to comments in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this aspect of the Bill: The Joint Committee states:

''In our report on the Draft Bill, we suggested that allowing religious organisations to hold licenses for local radio broadcasting, but not for national radio or any television broadcasting, brought into question the justification for interfering with their rights under ECHR Article 10 which had been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the blanket ban under current legislation. The Government takes the view that the aim of the provisions has not changed, and that 'the less wide-ranging ban proposed by the Bill pursues a legitimate objective in a proportionate manner and is compatible with the ECHR.' ''

The report goes on to say:

''The Government has not offered any detailed explanation for its view that a ban on owning any television broadcasting licence, but only on owning national (not local) radio broadcasting licences, is a response to another place pressing social need so as to be 'necessary in a democratic society' for the purpose of establishing a justification for interfering with freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2.''

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed some doubt about whether the Government's position, especially now that they have relaxed the rules for some aspects of the disqualification but not for others, is still compatible with the European Court's opinion. At the very least, we should examine that position.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but we understand that the Court has not agreed to reconsider the application and that UCB has simply made an application to have it reconsidered. We do not yet know whether that will happen. That update might be useful to the hon. Gentleman.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I understand that the Court has allocated the application a case number, so it appears that the application will be reconsidered. However, I hear what the Minister says. The position will undoubtedly become clear in the coming months. I promise him that, even if he is not persuaded by the arguments advanced today, the issue will return when the Bill is examined in the other place.

I have a quote from the Bishop of Manchester that demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue. Church groups across the board have strong concerns about the maintenance of the disqualifications, even though they are of a more limited type. Religious groups find it especially offensive that they are disqualified and that the disqualification should have exceptions in the case of particular licences. Obviously, it is welcome that the exceptions are expanded under provisions in the Bill, but it is the original disqualification that many religious groups find offensive. Of all the different interest groups that might want to apply for a broadcasting licence, they alone have been singled out in the Bill and will be disqualified by statute.

Photo of Chris Bryant Chris Bryant Llafur, Rhondda

What about political parties?

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

Does my hon. Friend not understand why the anomaly exists? Whereas there are plenty of channels available on the digital spectrum, that is not true of analogue commercial radio, where there are only three or four licences available for any particular area of a reasonable size. For one of those licences to belong to a particular religious faith could be deeply offensive to those of a different religious faith, or, indeed, those of no faith.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's argument. It is one with which I have some sympathy, but as I attempted to say earlier, that is easily dealt with, as we are not arguing that a religious body that applies for a licence should get one. We are simply saying that it is wrong that religious bodies should be barred from applying. In the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, I can well believe—indeed, I think it probable—that an application from a faith group for one of the few licences available would be rejected on precisely the grounds that he suggests. However, faith groups should at least be allowed to submit an application, rather than be singled out as they have been.

Photo of Chris Bryant Chris Bryant Llafur, Rhondda

The hon. Gentleman was trying to suggest—although he has already resiled from the argument—that only religious organisations are not allowed to apply. He knows that that is not true: the prohibition applies also to political organisations. Does he accept that we do not want as part of the broadcasting ecology a series of channels that exist purely to proselytise? That is what unites the two types of organisation bound together under the provision.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

First, many faith organisations would not be especially happy to be lumped together with certain political groups. Secondly, the aim of the channel need not be to proselytise. There already exists a successful religious radio station, Christian Premier Radio. It has had considerable difficulties because the terms of its licence strictly prevent it from advancing any particular view. The station's director told me that it was hauled over the coals by the Radio Authority for carrying a sermon by a preacher who claimed that Satanism was wrong. Somehow, the Radio Authority thought that that was a breach of the terms of the licence. Strong controls are already provided elsewhere.

Photo of Chris Bryant Chris Bryant Llafur, Rhondda

The hon. Gentleman is caricaturing the Radio Authority. In the station's early days, it tried to get everyone who went on it—even on to the news programmes—to sign up to the Westminster confession, which is a very narrow understanding of Christianity. That is hardly what a broadcasting organisation using scarce spectrum should be doing.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I do not want to get into a great theological debate with the hon. Gentleman, because his knowledge of the subject is probably greater than mine and I know when I am on a losing wicket. However, I hope that he accepts the general point that the Bill provides quite strict controls over, first, what can be broadcast and, secondly, who can obtain broadcasting licences. Our case is simply that those controls are sufficient to deal with the vast range of interests and groups that might be thought inappropriate, and each application can be examined on those terms.

The measure does not relate to any particular application, but provides for an across-the-board blanket ban, and the merits or disadvantages of an application make no difference. Many find that blanket ban offensive. Understandably religious organisations think it extraordinary that the disqualification puts the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi, for example, into the same broadcasting law category as murderers and rapists, and that a person who holds a position in a religious organisation should be disqualified from involvement in holding a broadcasting licence.

Let me quote the Bishop of Manchester. We should take him seriously as a representative of an established faith, and the Government should certainly do so because he and his colleagues are well represented in the other place, which is where the Bill is heading next. The bishop says:

''Christians will be pleased to hear that religious organisations will be allowed to own licences that enable services on the new DAB Digital radios . . . and on terrestrial Digital TV stations as well as local AM/FM radio, satellite/cable radio and satellite/ cable TV

licences. These freedoms will only come after Ofcom have made a determination whether they believe that that organisation is fit to obtain such a licence and for how long they may keep it . . . This requirement not only applies to religious organisations but equally to 'officers' of such an organisation . . . Many people in the Christian community feel such regulations are disproportionately restrictive, especially to an individual, who just happens to be an officer of a church or religious charity, and also to a broadcasting company wishing to operate a religious format that is owned by a charity that has the aim of supporting responsible religious broadcasting.''

The bishop goes on to question again whether the terms of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

I do not wish to speak much longer on the matter. I am moving the lead amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), but the three amendments in the group tabled by Conservative Members are designed to achieve the same objective. We want to remove the blanket disqualification and allow religious bodies applying to hold a broadcasting licence to be treated in the same way as any other applicant. There may be an argument that anything other than that is incompatible with the European convention on Human Rights, but even if that were not the case, there is a compelling argument not to single out people who are active in such groups, and say that, for some reason, because of their faith, they are not eligible even to apply for a broadcasting licence. I am pleased to add my support to the amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman.

Photo of John Robertson John Robertson Llafur, Glasgow Anniesland 9:15, 30 Ionawr 2003

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Will you consider the clause stand part debate to have taken place during our discussion of the amendments, or will we have such a debate later?

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

The amendments and the debates surrounding them embrace the entire clause. It is my expectation that there will therefore be no clause stand part debate. I do not propose to allow the Committee to go back over ground that has already been covered effectively.

I make it plain to the hon. Member for North Devon that the first group of amendments was offered to all hon. Members; no one chose to take them up and, as such, the amendments fall. It will be a matter of record that I wish the Clerk to inform Mr. Speaker that the amendments were not debated. They may therefore be retabled for discussion on Report. It will be up to Mr. Speaker to determine whether or not they are selected and debated. I hope that that makes the matter clear.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. When you report to the Speaker, will you point out such matters occurred because we started at five minutes to 9 o'clock and no Liberal Democrat Members were present?

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw the Chair into a party political dispute, he will be aware that I would deprecate it.

Photo of Nick Harvey Nick Harvey Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport)

I thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr.

Whittingdale) for moving amendment No. 405. Having done so with such aplomb, I shall refrain from adding to his remarks at great length, save to say that I concur with his arguments. I do not believe that the Government have satisfactorily answered the points that have been made on previous occasions and in recent correspondence.

Someone picking up the Bill for the first time and seeing the seemingly rather arbitrary prohibition on religious groups and organisations from owning broadcast licences, without hearing the arguments, would consider it bizarre. The ban on political parties, advertising agencies and religious bodies is almost as arbitrary as the prohibition on voting that applies to peers, criminals and lunatics. It reminds me of the questions people used to be asked when they sought admission to the United States of America, such as whether they were, ever had been or knew anyone who had been a communist or a homosexual, and whether they had or had ever had syphilis or knew someone who had it. People had to answer yes or no to the whole jolly lot. The argument that religious groups or organisations should be banned from applying for a broadcast licence is not sustainable.

It has been said that scarce spectrum means that such organisations should not be allowed unduly to dominate the available spectrum. That was challenged in the European Court and might be the subject of a further challenge, because it would seem, from a reading of the papers, that the Court was misled about the reality of the available spectrum at the time and it concluded that it had gained a false impression.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what he meant by a reading of the papers? Did he mean official papers or newspapers?

Photo of Nick Harvey Nick Harvey Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport)

I am speaking of a previous case. I am not talking about papers that have been deposited for a forthcoming case. On 7 November 2000, the Court said that

''there is no restriction on the grant of local or satellite radio licences to a religious organisation, since such services are not subject to the same constraints on spectrum capacity . . . the limitation on the applicant's right to freedom of expression through radio broadcasting is far from being absolute, since there is no restriction on religious bodies applying for and being granted licences for local radio broadcasting''.

That is at variance with reality. There are several restrictions on the ability of religious organisations to have local radio licences. Whatever the outcome of the forthcoming case, it is inevitable that, in human rights terms, the Bill will be found to be on the wrong side of the line.

There may well be good, practical and sound reasons why, when specific licences are being allocated, particular religious groups should not be given them. There is no reason why Ofcom or whoever is responsible for making much decisions cannot do so on the basis of scarce spectrum and the effect that granting a licence to a religious body would have on the ecology of broadcasting. For them to be banned in principle from even being allowed to apply for a licence is fundamentally wrong.

Photo of Chris Bryant Chris Bryant Llafur, Rhondda

The hon. Gentleman makes his case for human rights and the rights of Christian organisations to hold licences. He started by saying that just because someone was homosexual should not be a reason why that person should not have a licence, and that such thinking should apply to Christian organisations. When the first Christian radio station was set up in the United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a board member, but when it refused to have homosexuals on its programmes my right hon. Friend felt that he had to resign from the board.

Photo of Nick Harvey Nick Harvey Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport)

The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my argument. I said that it seemed extraordinarily arbitrary for legislation to single out religious organisations for the ban. I was comparing that with the arbitrary nature of some of the questions posed by the US immigration authorities. He is reading much more into what I said. If, in the future, licence holder were to discriminate in the way to which the hon. Gentleman referred, surely that in itself would be adequate grounds for Ofcom or the licence granting authority to take action against the licence holder and not favour future licence applications. However, singling out these three groups and banning them, in legislation, from even applying for a licence, is arbitrary. As I said a moment ago, I can see good reasons why, in particular circumstances, they may not be granted a licence, but why they should not be allowed even to apply for one is much harder to understand.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it rather odd to be arguing that groups should be allowed to apply for a licence, when, if those groups do the very thing for which they were originally set up, they are not going to get the licence? Is that not rather a mealy-mouthed approach to the whole issue?

Photo of Nick Harvey Nick Harvey Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport)

I do not believe that it is, and I am not sure that I understand what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) means when he says that when groups do the thing for which they were set up they will not get a licence. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) are saying that in no circumstances should those groups ever be allowed to broadcast, why will they be allowed to apply for particular licences? Why are we picking and choosing? If this is an issue of principle, those groups should be allowed to apply for any licence. If a particular application causes problems, Ofcom, or whoever else is responsible for granting licences, can sensibly balance the practical and pragmatic considerations and then state its reasons for awarding that particular licence.

I am concerned that we could write into legislation an absolute ban on those organisations from applying. That could not be justified. It would look very odd to someone considering the issue for the first time. Sooner or later, it would come unstuck at the European Court of Human Rights, because it would not be a sustainable position.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights had issued a warning. Last year, it suggested that:

''the Government should give further thought to the need and justification for maintaining the disqualification of religious groups from holding national radio and television licences.''

The hon. Gentleman also said that the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill arrived at a broadly similar conclusion.

Many people in the House, and many outside, will understand why, in specific circumstances, it would not be appropriate to give a licence to a religious group or organisation. Nevertheless, to ban them, in primary legislation, from applying for a licence is not sustainable. We have the chance to consider legislation of this type only once a decade so we should ensure that we get it right. The alternative is the messy business of litigation dragging through the European Court of Human Rights and, eventually, the House having to crawl back and change the legislation. To my mind, the Bill clearly abuses the principles of human rights.

Photo of John Robertson John Robertson Llafur, Glasgow Anniesland

In discussing this clause, I wish to return to music. You will be surprised to hear that, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and I had a meeting with the Music Business Forum, during which we had a long discussion about the clause.

I want to raise a number of points. Music is used in almost all television programmes—in film soundtracks, signature tunes and indents, for example. Commercial recordings are used as background to sports news and events, as well as in dedicated music programmes. The changes to media ownership rules are almost certain to impact on the British music industry. Subsection (1)(a) of the clause would lift restrictions on ownership. It would allow non-European Union, European economic area companies to get into our system.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

Order. I have already indicated to the Committee that the moment to debate foreign ownership has passed. In addition, the other matters that the hon. Gentleman seems to be raising are not covered by the clause. I ask him either to return to order or to resume his seat.

Photo of John Robertson John Robertson Llafur, Glasgow Anniesland

I was merely laying the groundwork for some questions on this clause that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to address. I will perhaps just ask those questions now. Has his Department assessed the economic consequences of the clause and of every proposed change of ownership both generally and in the music industry? If not, is he prepared to carry out such an assessment?

What safeguards exist to ensure that the liberalisation of media ownership does not lead to an increase in exploitation of the existing programme archives at the expense of opportunities for the current creators and music companies? Perhaps Ofcom could ensure that such issues are considered by having representatives from the creators on the content board. They would be able to advise about the impact of policies. May we have an explanation of why the rules should not apply to Britain and the rest of the world on a reciprocal basis?

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire 9:30, 30 Ionawr 2003

I can be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has already eloquently put our arguments on the disqualification of religious organisations and for the removal of such disqualification.

I will vote to remove the disqualification when we reach amendment No. 405. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill examined the clause and took the view that the Government had not made a case for the retention of the general prohibition. In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said that they would continue to consider the matter. They have failed to offer any new information to justify the continued retention of the general disqualification and the way in which they propose to modify it does not have sufficient basis.

I share the view of my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee that the general disqualification should go. The only argument in its favour is that there may be people with strong political convictions of an offensive type who do not necessarily belong to one of the ''bodies'' to which the Bill refers. Such people would not necessarily fall within the definitions in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996—[Interruption.]

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

Those definitions are geared to bodies whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, similar religious bodies, or those who have undue influence over them. However, those definitions would not include, for example, wealthy individuals who happen to have strong opinions but who are not necessarily office holders and do not have undue influence over a body of a political or religious nature. There is a substantial loophole in the clause. It may well be concluded that the loophole could be met by the fit and proper person test. However, such tests have been applied in other contexts. They have been found to be a difficult instrument to use and not one that most regulators would find a convenient basis for preventing ownership of assets or bodies—or of licences.

I am not asking for a debate. I merely wish to draw the Committee's attention to the issue. Later on, when we reach clause 377, I will seek to move amendment No. 26, which is related to new clause 1, the purpose of which is to introduce a plurality test to the Bill. A general public interest—

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

Order. I do not know whether it is the early hour—or what some people regard as an early hour, but others think is the middle of the day—but conversations are taking place that should have taken place in the Tea Room hours ago. I am trying to listen to the debate.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

It must be my fault. I read Tuesday's debate in Hansard, and there seems to be a conclusion that, from the anorak nature of my comments—see, I have read it—hon. Members probably assumed that they would not be interested in my comments. Perhaps they will read them later.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

Anoraks are extremely useful items of clothing, and I say that with admiration for the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of such matters.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

I am grateful to the Minister for that.

I will not speak at length, as I do not want to prejudice the debate that we will have later. One reason why I support the removal of a general disqualification for religious organisations is that I think that the introduction of a public interest test would be far more effective. New clause 1 would introduce a public interest test in relation to the Enterprise Act 2002, so that if someone proposed taking control of an organisation that held a broadcasting licence, we could apply a test of whether they would maintain a plurality of views, and ask whether there was a public interest

''need for

(a) accurate and impartial presentation of news and factual . . . programming; and

(b) free expression of opinion in broadcast television and radio services''.

That provision would not be confined to religious bodies or those associated with them. Its effect would be that the public interest test would bite on any person who wanted to take control of a body with a licence who was likely to prejudice the accurate and impartial presentation of news or the free expression of opinion.

The amendments, which we should support, are so structured that it would not be a case of simply removing the general disqualification for religious organisations, so that they were free to have licences in the same way as any other person. If there were any substance to the accusation that the holding of a licence by someone with religious views or from a religious organisation would affect the content of a radio or television station, not only would the licence conditions and format controls bite, but—if there were any a priori objections to that person—the public interest consideration could be brought to bear. That is a compelling reason for getting rid of the general disqualification, and that is why I would vote for doing so.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

We enjoy a free and varied press in this country. Newspapers and magazines represent the views of many different political and religious organisations, and that is right and proper. When there comes a time when there can be as many radio stations providing a local service as there are magazines and newspapers, the same should apply. I believe that radio stations should be allowed to be owned by religious or political organisations, as there is a degree of choice; if people do not want to listen to a radio station owned by a particular religious or political organisation, they are free to switch to a channel owned by a different religion or party.

Gareth Littler, the director of the Centre for Justice and Liberty, which represents the independent Christian broadcast media industry, wrote to all Committee members, and made an interesting point. He says:

''We are grateful for Government concessions, to allow us to apply for digital programme services. But, they may not have fully

understood our industry's request—that, rather than having to apply under exceptional determinations while still being 'disqualified', why can't our religious disqualification be removed, so that we can apply for licences, on a level playing field, with other citizens and our secular competitors?''

The answer to the question that he, and indeed the hon. Member for North Devon, poses is clear: the main difference between newspapers or magazines and analogue radio is, as I said, that there may be only four or five, and often fewer, radio stations serving an area. Therefore, if a licence were awarded to, say, an Islamic group, it would not be easy to provide one to a Christian or Jewish group; and if a licence were provided to such a group, it would prevent secular radio stations, providing the sort of rock music that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford likes so much, from getting a licence. The frequencies are simply not there; there is a technical restriction. It is perfectly logical to allow religious organisations to go for digital audio licences because many more of them are available. Other restrictions, such as those on political broadcasters, should also be lifted, but only for digital audio licences.

Photo of Nick Harvey Nick Harvey Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport)

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand why he thinks that a bizarre prohibition must be written into primary legislation in order to achieve his aim. If this is a technical issue, as he says, why can Ofcom not deal with that and publish a policy on technical grounds?

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

The technical issue is a state of physics—that is, universal laws state that there is only a limited spectrum for analogue. Following on from the hon. Gentleman's argument, he could equally argue that the prohibition on political parties owning radio stations should be lifted or that every restriction should be lifted. His argument cannot apply to only religious broadcasters but not others.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that there should not be a disqualification for digital spectrum licences but that disqualification should remain for analogue licences. Premier Christian Radio has held a local analogue licence for about seven years and achieves widespread support. I am not aware of complaints that other faith groups have been disadvantaged. Other groups have certainly not tried to establish stations.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

First, there have been complaints. The Radio Authority has had to keep a close eye on that station, which provides a valuable service. Secondly, that station is a local station in a unique market in which more than four or five analogue radio stations are available. Thirdly, the restrictions on Premier Christian Radio are such that it is not free to broadcast in the way in which I expect that it wants to, and I accept that. The frequencies are not available in hon. Friend's constituency, nor in mine and nor in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend is free to read the Radio Guide 2003 to check that fact for himself.

When we reach the stage at which we all listen to digital audio broadcasting and we all have the time and opportunity to listen to as many radio stations as there are newspapers and magazines available, I would welcome the right for anyone to apply for, and to be

rewarded, a licence. The current situation does not prevail in that manner. Simply arguing that stations should be allowed to apply for a licence, although they will not be issued with one, is hypocritical in the extreme.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

Before I invite the Minister to respond, I recognise that Back Benchers sometimes have to use considerable ingenuity in order to raise their points. I therefore chose to put the broadest possible construction on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and I assumed that he was referring mainly to religious music. If the Minister wishes to respond briefly to those remarks, I shall be prepared to allow that.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

That is very kind of you, Mr. Gale, and I shall be brief.

I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for not moving a certain amendment this morning. I felt so much better this morning because I was able to spend three or four hours in my flat last night refreshing my mind about issues such as possible changes to ownership instead of refreshing other parts, for which I might have paid quite a bit of money. I thank you for your guidance about music, Mr. Gale.

Our policy is to control the ownership by religious bodies of broadcasting licences to ensure that scarce spectrum is used to satisfy as many viewers and listeners as possible and to ensure that everyone's beliefs are equally respected. When broadcasting opportunities are more plentiful, which is increasingly the case in the digital age, there will be no need to impose restrictions. The relaxation of the rules under the Bill will underline that policy.

Religious organisations can already hold radio and TV cable and satellite licences. They can hold local analogue radio licences, radio restricted service licences and analogue radio additional service licences. We intend to use the Bill to remove the restrictions on religious bodies holding TV restricted service licences; digital programme service licences, which is digital terrestrial TV; TV digital additional service licences; radio digital additional service licences; local digital sound programme service licences, which is local terrestrial digital radio; and national digital sound programme service licences, which is national digital radio.

In respect of national digital sound programme licences, the recent decision by Freeview to include radio services on the digital TV multiplexes formerly operated by ITV Digital, which did not include radio services, means that more spectrum is now available for use by radio broadcasters. In line with our policy, we concluded that there is no longer a strong case for a restriction on religious bodies holding national digital sound programme service licences. We have therefore removed it. Under the current legislation, religious bodies can own a local terrestrial analogue licence, but not a local terrestrial digital licence. Clause 335 will allow Ofcom to award local terrestrial digital licences as well.

I turn now to a fact that might be considered irksome by some members of the Committee. Religious organisations will continue not to be able to hold national analogue radio and TV licences, including Channel 3 licences; national analogue TV additional service licences; and radio and TV multiplex licences—licences, not the service that might be on the multiplexes. The restrictions on religious bodies holding licences are maintained only where there is spectrum scarcity. We have sought legal advice and are confident that the continuing restrictions on religious broadcasting are fully compatible with obligations under the European convention on human rights.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 9:45, 30 Ionawr 2003

I want to ask the Minister a question before he moves on to hymns and carols. He said that he was confident that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. He will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about whether that is the case. It has asked the Secretary of State to set out why the Government still think that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR. Will the Minister make a copy of the letter available to members of the Committee? Will he check the current status of the application from UCB to have the case re-examined in the European Court?

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

I am happy to do that. We have nothing to hide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland referred to religious music. We believe that the relaxation of restrictions on religious organisations and other rules on media ownership, including those that relate to bodies that might not be from this country, will be good for the UK media in general and for listeners. There is no reason to think that the UK music industry—that is, the religious music industry—will suffer. Radio and television both need music. ''Songs of Praise'' is one of the longest running and most successful British television programmes. The evidence from TV, like that from radio, suggests that there is a strong and ongoing preference for UK religious music content. Moreover, clause 302 introduces a code to protect the localness of local radio and of local religious music.

Photo of John Robertson John Robertson Llafur, Glasgow Anniesland

I apologise for inadvertently forgetting to mention the words ''religious music''. Many choirs in Scotland are well known throughout the world, and they will be pleased with what the Minister said.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

I am very glad to hear that. I am sure that religious musicians everywhere will celebrate.

I think that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was saying that content regulation ought to be enough, but I am not sure—he looks sceptical. Perhaps he can elucidate.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

No, I do not think that I was saying that. I was saying that if the Minister were minded to accept later amendments and new clause 1, the combination of content regulation and an exceptional public interest test would be enough. There would be no other grounds.

There is a related question about mischief that might be occasioned by someone with extreme

religious or political views. If a fascist who had nothing to do with and no influence over a political party wanted to acquire a licence, the disqualifications would not bite on that individual; they bite only on bodies. Is it not better to have a general public interest test, rather than specific disqualifications?

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

I believe that such public interest tests are contained in other parts of the Bill and that there is sufficient content regulation, as administered and applied by Ofcom, to ensure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests may happen does not happen. However, I take his point and we must consider that issue carefully. I am a firm believer in not limiting the liberty of groups or individuals in respect of access to radio and television and to communications.

Photo of Mr Simon Thomas Mr Simon Thomas Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion

I am intrigued by the Minister's remarks. He accepted the example given by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire of what might happen if an individual—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a fascist, but it could be an extreme religious zealot—were to take up broadcasting. The Minister said that there is enough in the Bill, including content and public interest regulation, to control such a situation. Why then is there not enough in the Bill to control any problems that might arise from religious broadcasts? Surely, the whole thing can be controlled simply through content and public interest regulation. We do not need the rather spurious argument about spectrum.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

The hon. Gentleman missed the first part of the debate, so he missed the hon. Member for Lichfield explaining the iron laws of physics. [Interruption.] Perhaps he was in the Room for that. I would underline the argument that the hon. Member for Lichfield made. It would be entirely spurious—if I can turn that word back on the hon. Member for Ceredigion—to allow religious bodies to apply for all licences only for them to be turned down by Ofcom because there is not enough spectrum. That would be the height of hypocrisy. Government ought to have the guts to say that there is no spectrum available that would allow a degree of latitude. We ought to ensure that we take such decisions in Parliament, because that is what Parliament is for. Sometimes we have to be courageous and stand up against lobbying organisations when it is clear that we will not be able to allow such access. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I am profoundly unconvinced by the Minister's argument, which appears to be that because of the continuing existence of limited spectrum in some areas, there are strong reasons why religious organisations would not be granted a licence should they apply for one. He has not explained why they need to be subject to an arbitrary blanket ban rather than to the controls to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, the hon. Member for North Devon and I have referred which would stop those expressions of concern about particular religious proselytising on the radio within a limited spectrum. I do not accept the Minister's

arguments. However, the matter will not be resolved today. The debate has been going on for a long time and it will continue for longer still. Moreover, there are strongly felt concerns in the other place.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield

Can my hon. Friend and religious organisations at least take solace from the fact that in the longer term, when the digital switchover has taken place, there will be no such restrictions?

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

That is not strictly true. There will be fewer restrictions, although there will still be some relating to digital multiplex licences.

Religious organisations object to the fact that they, along with political parties and advertising agencies, are singled out as being inappropriate—we are about to debate whether the other two sectors should be singled out. Those organisations are permitted to apply for a licence only under exemptions to the general prohibition in the Bill. I fully understand why they find that offensive.

Photo of Andrew Robathan Andrew Robathan Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry)

The Minister argued that spectrum scarcity is the reason for the restriction, but does not that apply to every person who wishes to apply for a licence—or have I missed something?

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

My hon. Friend is right. Limited spectrum scarcity will always mean that there are likely to be more applicants than the number of slots available. The Radio Authority now and Ofcom soon will have to make choices, and some arguments that might be used against agreeing to an application from a religious body would be taken into account by Ofcom in other cases.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

I do not wish to delay my hon. Friend, but does he agree that the Minister has not answered the point that a person with extreme religious views would not be disqualified from seeking a licence, notwithstanding spectrum scarcity? Religious organisations have been singled out, which is an absurdity. Bans have loopholes.

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He has pointed out the absurdity of trying to deal with the generality when we should be considering specific applications and judging each one on its merits, not imposing blanket bans which are full of loopholes.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make his argument, but the decision was made many years ago and it was supported by the Governments of Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Major and others. If such a measure was so absurd, why did he, as one who worked for Mrs. Thatcher, support it then, but not now?

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

There are few hon. Members who are greater admirers of Lady Thatcher and her Government than me. However, I must admit that even I disagreed with her on occasion. We will soon debate broadcasting matters that the then Government, who in the main I supported with enthusiasm, might have got wrong. However, time has moved on. I shall not prolong the debate. Although we will not press the amendment to a Division, the Minister should not think that we do not

continue to feel strongly that the Government have got it wrong.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Ceidwadwyr, Lichfield 10:00, 30 Ionawr 2003

My hon. Friend used an interesting phrase: time has moved on. Does he accept that because time has moved on, because we might face a war in the Gulf and because this country has more immigrants from different religions than ever, some might say that there is an even stronger argument that the limited spectrum, which is no different now than it was before, should be policed even more strongly to ensure that one religious group is not antagonised or upset by another?

Photo of John Whittingdale John Whittingdale Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

If some did argue that, they would be wrong. I am not going to recap my arguments about how controls already exist to deal with my hon. Friend's concern.

We continue to feel strongly about the matter and although we shall not press the amendment, we will want to return to the subject. I am sure that this morning's debate will be read with great interest by those who will examine the Bill when it reaches the House of Lords. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in

clause 335, page 285, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 170, in

schedule 19, page 533, leave out line 40.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

The lead amendment would remove the provision that will remove the disqualification of advertising agencies from holding a licence, and amendment No. 170 is a technical amendment to delete the same provision from the list of repeals at the back of the Bill.

I would like to remove the disqualification and leave people to use competition law to pursue cases, and there is no reason why we should not do that. However, as we will debate later, competition law properly buttressed in one or two ways, especially by using public interest tests, should suffice for ownership controls, given that there is an additional licensing process with conditions and format controls.

I tabled the amendment for two reasons. First, the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill said that the disqualification should remain and that advertising agencies should not be able to hold a licence because of obvious conflicts of interest advertising agencies and the ownership of broadcasting outlets. Secondly, speaking to the amendment gives me an opportunity to illustrate the absurd position that the Government are taking. As we will see later, they are proposing to retain a significant number of specific controls on who may own licences—we have talked about one—or combinations of media, including different types of channels.

The absurdity arises because the Government will argue that one of the principal reasons why controls should be retained is that a priori judgments can be made about conflicts of interest or degrees of

concentration of ownership that would arise if there were certain combinations of ownership of different media, or if specific people owned channels. It is curious that the Government are saying, in effect, ''In this respect and that respect and the other respect as well, we, the Government, can say that there are competition reasons why so and so should not own this channel and why a newspaper with such and such a concentration should not own a media outlet.'' If the Government argue that, we will present our arguments later.

However, the Government are trying to have it both ways. They say that they can make advance judgments about what competition law would provide in several respects, but then say that competition law is perfectly okay to address such an obvious conflict of interest as we are debating. If the Bill retains provisions that prohibit ownership and debar a specific person or category of person from owning a broadcasting licence when obvious competition problems arise, why do advertising agencies not require such a prohibition?

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned two concepts that he used quite a lot earlier. One relates to plurality of ownership and the public interest test—he alluded to some clauses that are to be debated later. The other is this one. I share his interest in competition matters, which are more to do with who is available to buy advertising and who is available to profit from that contractual process. The issues are very different.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

I understand the Minister's first point. The only reason that I have not mentioned those matters is that I was wrapping them up in my personal belief. I tabled the amendment to probe the consistency of the Government's position, not necessarily because I think that competition law, especially if buttressed by the exceptional public interest test, would not be a perfectly valid basis on which to disqualify advertising agencies from acquiring broadcasting licences.

I am not sure what the Minister is getting at in his second point—perhaps he can explain. I am not sure that I have divined what type of advertising agency the Government think will be able to buy broadcasting licences.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

That is the heart of the question. It is the business of advertising and the sale of advertising to one of its most potent carriers that could presumably be perceived as almost a vertical integration of the business between those who provide advertising, those who sell it, and those who buy it. That is the key difference between the clauses that we will discuss later, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and clause 335, which deals with whether advertising companies should be able to own television companies that might buy the very adverts that they create.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

If I understand him correctly, the Minister is saying that there is a difference in competition law terms between the degrees of horizontal and vertical integration. That is true. Some forms of vertical integration have benefits. For example, on Tuesday morning in Westminster Hall, I

discussed the necessity of vertical integration in the film industry.

I am not sure, however, that anyone is arguing that the degree of vertical integration implied by the ownership of broadcasting by advertising companies is desirable. It is pretty much the case that, when vertical integration has no existing basis in industrial structure and can be avoided, the competition authorities avoid it, which is a good thing. That brings me back to my question. In what circumstances do the Government contemplate an advertising agency being able to purchase a broadcasting licence?

Photo of Mr Brian White Mr Brian White Llafur, North East Milton Keynes

One thing that is proliferating at the moment is travel agents' shows advertising holidays, which are one of the biggest purchases that we make each year. For example, Thomas Cook TV is a 24-hour cable and satellite television channel. Advertising agencies themselves cannot screen programmes on a wide range of products, but it is leading to sector specific programming. In effect, advertising agencies are putting on those shows.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

I am not quite with the hon. Gentleman—perhaps I have not watched enough travel shows to follow his argument. However, can the Government explain to the Committee the circumstances in which an advertising agency would be able to buy a broadcasting licence? To be frank, the advertising industry does not seem to be able to contemplate that set of circumstances—it is not fussed about whether disqualification is retained or not.

If the Government cannot explain, relying on the competition law is inconsistent with provisions that we will discuss later. I favour consistency. As it happens, I am consistently pro-competition. I would rather go down that route. I tabled the amendment to find out whether the Government could explain the thinking behind the clause, which was certainly not explained to the Joint Committee in any satisfactory terms.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

As the hon. Gentleman told us, the purpose of the amendment is to prevent advertising agencies from holding broadcasting licences. We explained the basis for the policy in the communications White Paper: we said that the current disqualification in respect of advertising agencies is aimed at ensuring fair competition in the advertising market. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls that point—it was in the White Paper. The Competition Act 1998 makes the disqualification unnecessary. We are therefore revoking the rule, and relying on the competition authorities to judge the likely impact on competition of agencies holding licences.

The Bill gives Ofcom concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading to exercise the powers of the Competition Act in respect of communications matters, including broadcasting. Both Ofcom and the OFT will be able to exercise the powers provided by the Competition Act, so we have made sure that they consult together in respect of any new case arising and agree which of them should act.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Competition Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuse by dominant firms. Competition authorities will consider whether an advertising agency is behaving anti-competitively, either by engaging in anti-competitive agreements or by abusing a dominant position. Advertising agencies are subject to the terms of the Competition Act in the same way as other economic players. Whether a particular agreement or conduct breaches the prohibitions can only be decided case by case following a full investigation. The investigation has to address various questions, such as what are the relevant markets in which the agreements or dominant positions are considered to arise and in which competition will be affected, and whether a firm holds a dominant position in any relevant market and is abusing the position anti-competitively.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire

The Minister will recall that, under the Competition Act, the part 1 prohibition relates to associated practices between undertakings and the part 2 prohibition relates to anti-competitive practices by companies in a dominant position. It does not prohibit activity that might be anti-competitive by companies that are not in a dominant position and in other circumstances—such as on Tuesday morning when I was not in the Room—the Minister argued that for that reason, in relation to broadcasting, the Competition Act provisions will not necessarily be sufficient and that there might be a case for licence conditions.

Photo of Kim Howells Kim Howells Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport

That is the point that I, in my stumbling way, was trying to make in my intervention on the hon. Gentleman. There is a qualitative difference between issues that rotate around questions of plurality and competition issues. That is why last night when I was reading for the Committee I was surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman had tabled the amendment. I am not sure, and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I thought he said when moving the amendment that there is probably enough power in the Competition Act and in Ofcom's ability to use its judgment to decide whether to follow the sectoral competition rules or the Competition Act, the OFT and the Competition Commission to examine and control such issues to obviate the need for his amendment. He will have to tell us whether that is true—he is smiling with a touch of irony.

Given the rules in the Competition Act 1998 and the powers of Ofcom and the OFT to investigate such cases, we believe that there is sufficient protection for democracy and that additional regulation is unnecessary. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I have heard nothing to persuade me that competition law is unable to prevent distortions in the advertising market. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Photo of Andrew Lansley Andrew Lansley Ceidwadwyr, South Cambridgeshire 10:15, 30 Ionawr 2003

The Minister rightly detects that my preference would be to rely on competition law, which would probably be sufficient. However, there are loopholes and it is conceivable that substantive conditions would have to be applied if an advertising

agency that was not in a dominant market position sought to acquire a broadcasting licence, because it might still be able to engage in anti-competitive practices through vertical integration. Competition law powers would be required for that purpose.

The Minister has detected my intention. The location of the clause in the Bill is helpful because it sets the scene for discussions on later clauses where the Government seem to be going in precisely the opposite direction by trying to impose conditions and controls when competition law would be perfectly sufficient, particularly if it were strengthened by a test of exceptional public interest. The Minister has rightly deduced that I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 335 ordered to stand part of the Bill.